I Is Transverse Strain Zero at the Bolts of a Clamped Circular Membrane?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Chrono G. Xay
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Strain Transverse
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the assumption that transverse strain at the bolts of a clamped circular membrane is zero. The author initially visualized the rim's shape between bolts as a catenary curve but later proposed a static amplitude modulating function instead. A mathematical expression for this function is provided, suggesting a relationship in cylindrical coordinates. The valleys in the graph represent the bolts' positions, while the peaks indicate the transverse strain of the rim. Overall, the exploration aims to clarify the mechanics of strain distribution in the membrane system.
Chrono G. Xay
Messages
91
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
I’m trying to do some analysis of an acoustic drum at rest. In an earlier thread of mine I was getting some help verifying the equation for axisymmetric surface tension of a circular membrane. The starting point I chose assumed that the transverse strain of the clamping annulus was either zero or considered negligible. This next analysis assumes the opposite.
The annulus (“rim”) clamping the circular membrane over its cylindrical shell has a number of bolts ‘n’ positioned equidistantly around its perimeter. I’m guessing that the amount of transverse strain at those bolts would be where we might reasonably assume to be zero.

When I was first trying to imagine what general shape the rim would take between any two neighboring bolts I thought of a catenary curve. However, as time went on that made less and less sense. As I kept poking around with a graphing calculator, what seemed to make more sense is something probably akin to a sort of… ‘static’ (my word) amplitude modulating function. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about (in Cartesian coordinates): $$y_1(x) = \frac{a^{-1}\left|{0.5\left[a - sin\left({nπx + \frac π 2 }\right)\right]} \right| sin\left({nπx + \frac π 2}\right)-0.5\left(a-1\right)} b$$
Where ##a ≥ 2## and ##b > 0##.

I’m guessing that a parametrized graph of this line in cylindrical coordinates would be something like… ##r = n, z=y_1(θ)##? Did I use that word correctly?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Here’s a screenshot of the graphed function (very slightly altered- LaTex below), where ##n = 6##, ##a = 3##, and ##b = 5##:

$$y_1(x) = \frac{\left|{0.5\left[a - sin\left({nπx + \frac π 2 }\right)\right]} \right| sin\left({nπx + \frac π 2}\right)+\left(a-1\right)} {ab}$$
Where ##a ≥ 2## and ##b > 0##.

View attachment 340565

For the sake of clarity: The valleys of the graph indicate the locations of the bolts pulling down on the annulus (“rim”), which pulls the circular membrane taught across the opening of the open-ended cylindrical shell. The peaks then are the transverse strain of the rim.
 
The picture I uploaded is giving me errors. Let me try that again…
IMG_7135.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
35
Views
28K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top